goofy looking IMHO [>:/]
what can that do that a M4/M16 can't do ??
I guess it weighs less but that's it, heck a Bushmaster Carbon 15 would weigh about the same
EDIT to add:
gas piston in-lieu of gas impingement sounds good & the "caliber conversion" option is intriguing
SO this a done deal??
XM8 soon to be future & M16 on it's last legs [>(]

If I could purchase one now I would. I love my ars' but they do have flaws. It looks like they are trying to fix them with the xm8. As for it being plastic, so is my xd40 and I would have no problem bashing a skull with it if need be.

Replace the M4? I think not. They list the barrel length at 12.5", which is way too short for proper velocity of 5.56.
At least they list a 10rd mag, so if they do develope it, it might be available to civilians.

Originally Posted By cnatra:
goofy looking IMHO [>:/]
what can that do that a M4/M16 can't do ??
I guess it weighs less but that's it, heck a Bushmaster Carbon 15 would weigh about the same
EDIT to add:
gas piston in-lieu of gas impingement sounds good & the "caliber conversion" option is intriguing
SO this a done deal??
XM8 soon to be future & M16 on it's last legs [>(]

View Quote

Its far from a done deal. Just the opposite, the media blitz is HK's efforts to keep the project alive and try to salvage something out of the OICW project, which is all but dead.
REALITY, in the form of experience with a actual war, has kicked in.

What the hell are they thinking??? .223??? A mouse caliber???
Plastic parts??? Aluminum receiver??? What the hell is this supposed to be??? This will NEVER EVER replace the the M14!!!
ooops wrong decade.

Never seen a video of this gun till now. Seems interesting. But IMO, the current M16A4 is a better weapon from what I've read. Although I do like the XM8's gas system...
Does the bolt lock back? From the video it appears so, but I may be wrong.

"The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." - Plato

Originally Posted By Lockedon:
What the hell are they thinking??? .223??? A mouse caliber???
Plastic parts??? Aluminum receiver??? What the hell is this supposed to be??? This will NEVER EVER replace the the M14!!!
ooops wrong decade.

View Quote

But you hit the assinine nature of the whole project right on the head. It IS NOT ANY DIFFERENT FROM THE AR. Same cartridge, another plastic and aluminum gun, it just has a gas piston-big fuckin deal. Unless you also intend to use the same gun as a SAW, a bad idea by the way, the cleaner nature of the piston action is not offset by the more weight in the front end and the extra parts.

Originally Posted By Lockedon:
What the hell are they thinking??? .223??? A mouse caliber???
Plastic parts??? Aluminum receiver??? What the hell is this supposed to be??? This will NEVER EVER replace the the M14!!!
ooops wrong decade.

hmmm it actually looks like a pretty cool deal... i'm not too fond of the integrated sight though... I would rather have "options" regarding optics. would be super cool with a flat rail on top.
LittleJacek

Well if all the specs ain't BS I'll give it a chance, but the "extra reliable 100 mag" is BS if its a Cmag. I like the fact that one adjustment zeros all sights, this would be kick ass!! in Afgan the PAQ4 would need to be zeroed along with the 68's every now and again. one adjustment that zeroed all sighting devices would save alot of time which means less mission prep time and more time for rehersals, etc. We will see I have a friend at FT Benning that owes me a favor so I think I will have to go shoot this thing and if/when I do I will give a full report keep your fingers crossed.
FREE

"There is nothing more exhilerating than being shot at and missed" Sir Winston Churchill

The XM8 is a long way off from being adopted and if ever, and def. not in it's current configuration. This is not new in reguards to very serious claims of how much it is better, we have seen these type claims by the new weapons people time and again, and when push came to shove in competition, the M16 family beat them every time. They are not listing the problems, and they won't, but they will keep on getting more and more money from Congress to keep the prodject and jobs going.
They always talk with glowing terms, and always in generalities, (never specific's of how), because those can be disected and found if true or not. There are some huge engineering problems that would have to be overcome, and those deficiancies will become known as time goes on.
DON'T SELL THE M16/M4's yet:)
Good shootin, Jack and HAPPY THANKS GIVING TO ALL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Can you put a bayonete on that thing? The site's pretty high. The mag release sucks. The barrel is too short for the ammo. The ambidextrous selector switch seems to get in the way of the trigger finger. No bolt hold open after empty mag. So on and so forth. I'm not impressed. This seems like an incredible waste of time money and effort. 12.5 inch barrel? [toilet]

"We [the media] are the ones that determine what the people's attitudes are. It's in our hands"
~ Ted Turner,

Did anyone else notice that when they listed the price of the M4 it was 900 dollars, then when they listed its price with shown accessories it was 2539 dollars. All it had was an Aimpoint on it. Maybe that crap costs more in Germany...
Digital

The XM8 can do a few things that the M4 and M16 cannot, that makes it quite different, and in fact quite advantageous, especially to special ops:
1. Fire while full of water XM8:YES M4:NO
2. Change barrels at the user level in less than 2 minutes (10",14.5",20") XM8:YES M4:NO
3. Keep action clear of carbon fouling due to gas piston XM8:YES M4:NO
I can understand why there is so much opposition to replacing the M16 as the MBR, I have two ARs and served for 8 years with the M16A1 and M16A2, but lets face it, a system that is prone to carbon fouling because it spews the spent gases directly into the action was never a great idea. If you read the comparison PDF file the XM8 simply has more capabilities that the M4, it's comparing apples to oranges.
Yeah, it looks funky and they obviously need a lot of work on this new rifle, but I don't think there is any doubt tha a new, more modern weapon system is needed for our combat forces.
Almost 50 years makes the M16 platfom a dinosaur. It's time to move on, as good as it has been.

Hold on a minute... The AR can fire perfectly well after being submerged in water.
Yes, maybe the gas system is better. Yes, maybe you can change barrels faster - but will every soldier carry spare barrels? Probably not - if not, then it will probably be changed in an armory somewhere. If that is the case, a uick barrel changeout really ins't much of an advantage.
The 12.5" barrel length bothers me also ( just found out that length ). The 5.56 is fine with the 14.5 - why change it to something that will not stop an enemy?
And can SOMEONE tell me what this thing can do that the M-16/M4 cannot? The question has been asked several times so far. Why replace something if you have no gain in capabilities?
I will say that the change from the M-14 to the M-16 was a good one - it made sense, and took into consideration HOW we fight.
Plastic is OK with me, as long as it can do more. The hell of it is, is that this chunk of plastic CANNOT.

"I will say that the change from the M-14 to the M-16 was a good one - it made sense, and took into consideration HOW we fight."
[/quote]
----------------------------------------------
[b]An excellent point.[/b]
The M-16 design took into account the education and intelligence of the American soldier. The AK design took into account the education of the Soviet soldier. Both weapons were correctly designed for their average user. (IMHO)
Most countries teach their soldiers to die for their countries. We teach our soldiers to provide assistance. Both weapons reflect their respective philosophies. (Through 1974)
[b]Perhaps a [size=3]'CLAW MOUNT'[/size=3] ( as with the HK91) can be provided with the XM8 to enable us to mount scopes and accessories and be certain that none can be returned to zero ??[/b]
5sub

Originally Posted By Blackjack272:
Hold on a minute... The AR can fire perfectly well after being submerged in water.
Yes, maybe the gas system is better. Yes, maybe you can change barrels faster - but will every soldier carry spare barrels? Probably not - if not, then it will probably be changed in an armory somewhere. If that is the case, a uick barrel changeout really ins't much of an advantage.
The 12.5" barrel length bothers me also ( just found out that length ). The 5.56 is fine with the 14.5 - why change it to something that will not stop an enemy?
And can SOMEONE tell me what this thing can do that the M-16/M4 cannot? The question has been asked several times so far. Why replace something if you have no gain in capabilities?
I will say that the change from the M-14 to the M-16 was a good one - it made sense, and took into consideration HOW we fight.
Plastic is OK with me, as long as it can do more. The hell of it is, is that this chunk of plastic CANNOT.

View Quote

Just a couple of things - according to US Government tests the M4 cannot fire without endangering the operator if the barrel is obstructed with water. You are not limited to a 12.5 inch barrel with the prototype XM8 - if you read the documents on the link you can see there are several barrel lengths including a 20". First read the XM8 comparison with M4 - there are a whole slew of things the XM8 can do that the M4 cannot. You obviously have not read the government comparison documents.
Special Ops forces certainly DO benefit from quick barrel changes - to be able to go from a 10" CQB weapon to a 20" accurate rifle with high MV without having to carry two rifles, when there is no armory (friendly at least) nearby is certainly nothing to be ignored.
I'm not defending the XM8, but let's look at the facts objectively here.

Originally Posted By Blackjack272:
Hold on a minute... The AR can fire perfectly well after being submerged in water.
Yes, maybe the gas system is better. Yes, maybe you can change barrels faster - but will every soldier carry spare barrels? Probably not - if not, then it will probably be changed in an armory somewhere. If that is the case, a uick barrel changeout really ins't much of an advantage.
The 12.5" barrel length bothers me also ( just found out that length ). The 5.56 is fine with the 14.5 - why change it to something that will not stop an enemy?
And can SOMEONE tell me what this thing can do that the M-16/M4 cannot? The question has been asked several times so far. Why replace something if you have no gain in capabilities?
I will say that the change from the M-14 to the M-16 was a good one - it made sense, and took into consideration HOW we fight.
Plastic is OK with me, as long as it can do more. The hell of it is, is that this chunk of plastic CANNOT.

View Quote

Just a couple of things - according to US Government tests the M4 cannot fire without endangering the operator if the barrel is obstructed with water. You are not limited to a 12.5 inch barrel with the prototype XM8 - if you read the documents on the link you can see there are several barrel lengths including a 20". First read the XM8 comparison with M4 - there are a whole slew of things the XM8 can do that the M4 cannot. You obviously have not read the government comparison documents.
Special Ops forces certainly DO benefit from quick barrel changes - to be able to go from a 10" CQB weapon to a 20" accurate rifle with high MV without having to carry two rifles, when there is no armory (friendly at least) nearby is certainly nothing to be ignored.
I'm not defending the XM8, but let's look at the facts objectively here.

View Quote

There is already a quick change barrel upper for the AR. MSTN already posted pictures of it. IF that is something of value, considering change of barrel means change of zero, so why not have the reciever-and the sights- attached?

"AWESOME, JUST AWESOME"
I'll be one of the first in line, with DEMO LETTER in hand to get one.
[img]http://www.hk-usa.com/pages/military-le/mil-leimages/xm8apgsold1popup.jpg[/img]
[img]http://www.hk-usa.com/pages/military-le/mil-leimages/xm8soldierpopup.jpg[/img]

Originally Posted By LARRYG36:
"AWESOME, JUST AWESOME"
I'll be one of the first in line, with DEMO LETTER in hand to get one.
I cant wait to order one up.

View Quote

There you go. Got all your 'pronouncements' in one post.
-----------------------------------------------
Wonder how much the 'claw mount' will cost for this thing ?? And there's gotta be a 3.5" barrel option for this thing to be "AWESOME. JUST AWESOME."

Hehe A Heinleinien style Starship Troopers weapon?!?!?!
COUNT ME IN!!! hehe
If they release it to the civi's, I want one. But, my AR is going no where. It has proven it's reliability more than once.
Only problem is,....I live in Kalifornia so I won't be seeing one even if they do release it.

Its a solution to a problem that does not exist. People think just becuase something is new its better. You want to talk about lack of stopping power, you think its a problem now, wait until those 12.5 inch barrels make it out there.

Originally Posted By _DR:
Just a couple of things - according to US Government tests the M4 cannot fire without endangering the operator if the barrel is obstructed with water. You are not limited to a 12.5 inch barrel with the prototype XM8 - if you read the documents on the link you can see there are several barrel lengths including a 20". First read the XM8 comparison with M4 - there are a whole slew of things the XM8 can do that the M4 cannot. You obviously have not read the government comparison documents.
[red]Special Ops forces certainly DO benefit from quick barrel changes - to be able to go from a 10" CQB weapon to a 20" accurate rifle with high MV without having to carry two rifles, when there is no armory (friendly at least) nearby is certainly nothing to be ignored.[/red]
I'm not defending the XM8, but let's look at the facts objectively here.

View Quote

give me an AR, a 20 inch upper and a 11.5 inch upper with a 9mm conversion , and I can change uppers AND calibers faster then they can change just barrels.
Becides, changing from rifle to CQB carbine usually means changing optics from ACOG's to Aimpoints. Something I do not see a provision for on the XM8 since it has no rails.
And did you guys hear that commentary video? The soldier that says "I like the selector. It's right by your thumb and very easy to get at."
WTF was he trained on an AK47!?!?!?!?!
IMHO, its a solution to a problem that does not exist
Edited to add: I jsut read the Head to Head comparison between the M4 and XM8, and under the part that talks about modularity, it says the XM8 can be converted from between rifle, carbine, SAW, and DMR. Yet under the AR it only says accessories are modular? The AR can do that as well as the XM8 with the push of two pins. I guess by serilizing the upper part of HK weapons, they doomed themselves into having every variant a different rifle.

"A firearm is like a fine woman. You take care of it and it will take care of you. You don't take care of it and it can be a real Bitch."

Originally Posted By Blackjack272:
I really wonder why the USMC never gets such brainfarts like the Army does.

View Quote

I wonder the same thing, considering the Marines are supposed to be the idiots of the armed forces. As much as I like the M4, I still think it's a mistake to make it the general purpose rifle of the Army, which is pretty much what they want. If they go with this XM8 thing, that will pretty much prove that the Army people are the idiots of the armed forces.

Never have I seen a word as accurate as politics. Poly meaning
many, and tic being a blood-sucking thing.

Yup. I agree with the last... oh... 3 posts.
I personally say take the M-16A4, mount some optic on it ( ACOG or Aimpoint ), and you have the standard service rifle to the entire US Military. Done deal.

The USMC were the ones who started the whole thing by putting support and lots of their alotted money into the OICW, the forunner of this abortion. When the built in stupid 20mm grende launcher grendes blew up and injurd some Marines, that's when they pulled out and so was the grenade launcher. However the OICW is still being pushed by the same people pushing and making the XM8, which is just a new name for the launcherless OICW.
JACK